NT giving principles are far superior to the OT giving principles. It is inconsistent to base the NT doctines on NT texts after Calvary but base giving on legalistic principles.

I wonder how you would explain Galatians 3:10.

Wow.. that was a long comment disagreeing with you..

As for me, I am for tithing and sowing. To me, it is the best ‘investment’. If I’m down to my last seed, I’d rather sow it than eat it.

BEFORE the Law, tithing was NOT voluntary.
The Bible nowhere says that Abram gave voluntarily or of his own free will. Do some research. The overwhelming majority of commentaries say that the 90% of verse 21 was controlled by pagan Arab tradition. That means that the 10% of verse 20 probably was also. Abram was forced to pay a spoils-of-war tithe to the local priest-king as was the custom in much of his world at that time.

DURING the Law, tithing was compulsory only for farmers and herdsmen who lived inside national Israel. It did not apply to those living outside of Israel nor to craftsmen or tradesmen such as carpenters, fishermen or tentmakers.

Firstfruits and tithes were never the same thing. Firstfruits were a very small token offering which could be carried by hand in a small basket. They must be eaten inside the Temple by priests. Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a. Tithes were brought to the Levitical cites to be eaten by the 98% who were not serving at the Temple (Neh 10:37-39; Num 18:21-29; 2 Chron 31:15-18).

AFTER the Law, tithing is never commanded to the Gentiles or the Church after Calvary.
Tithing was never a starting point or standards except for farmers and herdsmen inside of Israel. It is a lie to say that it was some kind of universal starting point.

Abraham’s tithe is not an example for Christians to follow:

For the following reasons, Genesis 14:20 cannot be used as an example for Christians to tithe. (1) The Bible does not say that Abraham “freely” gave this tithe. (2) Abraham’s gift was NOT a holy tithe from God’s holy land gathered by God’s holy people under God’s holy Old Covenant. (3) Abraham’s tithe was only from pagan spoils of war and was required in many nations. (4) In Numbers 31, God only required 1% of spoils of war. (5) Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was a one-time recorded event. (6) Abraham’s tithe was not from his own personal property. (7) Abraham kept nothing for himself; he gave everything back. (8) Abraham’s tithe is not quoted anywhere in the Bible to endorse tithing to Israel or to the church. (9) Genesis 14, verse 21, is the key text. Since most commentaries explain verse 21 as an example of pagan Arab tradition, it is contradictory to explain the 90% of verse 21 as pagan, while insisting that the 10% of verse 20 was God’s will. (10) If Abraham is an example for Christians to give 10% to God, then he should also be an example for Christians to give the other 90% to Satan, or to the king of Sodom! (11) As priests themselves, neither Abraham nor Jacob had a Levitical priesthood to support; they probably left food for the poor at their altars.

When you discuss the bread and wine of Genesis 14 you are projecting something from the NT back into the OT which was not there. Bread and wine were the cheapest and most common of foods and would have been given to any guests –pagan or otherwise.
You wrote: “Abram, as recognition of Melchizedek’s greatness, gave Melchizedek a tithe of everything he has as indicated in verse 20, “a tithe of all”. This was done by Abram willingly and voluntarily.”

That is not found in God’s Word. You are repeating what you have always been told.

Since the king of Sodom represents the world, then why did Melchizedek allow him to greet Abram as his personal envoy and why did Abram give him the 90%? I see pagan Arab tradition at work here.
You wrote: “The king is rightfully entitled to a tenth of the wealth conquered. Hence, when Abram brought a tenth —.”

This is what I have been saying. You are confused. It cannot be both (1) a freewill offering and also (2) what the king was rightfully entitled to. Make up your mind. It is either one or the other –not both.

That which Abram gave to Melchizedek would not qualify as a holy tithe under the law.
Like all tithe-teachers you distort the purpose of Hebrews 7 and turn the messenger into the message. Hebrews 7 is not about tithing; it is about the superior priesthood of Jesus which has replaced the priesthood of Aaron and all rules and regulations which allowed it to exist –especially tithing.
Heb 7:5 is the “first occurrence” in Hebrews of “law,” “commandment” and “tithes.” Therefore when 7:12 says it is “necessary to change the law” it must refer back to the law of tithing from verse 5. How was it changed? It was not changed to the Church. Rather it was “abolished, annulled” in 7:18. Why? Because of “better new covenant” principles in 7:19. Why is that so hard to understand?

You wrote: “Look at the Jews and their wealth” as if they got there by tithing. This is a joke. (1) Jews do not teach tithing today, (2) most rich Jews as essentially atheists and (3) millions of very poor Jews fill large cities ghetto projects.

God has a far greater plan than we know or imagine possible –and it certainly is not tithing. It is giving sacrificially from a heart overflowing with love for God and love for others because the Holy Spirit is in charge.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing?